Reviewer Guidelines

Ipso Jure is a peer-reviewed, open access international journal dedicated to advancing knowledge in the field of rule of law. Reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the quality and integrity of published research. These guidelines outline the responsibilities, expectations, and ethical standards for reviewers.

Overview of the Review Process

  1. Initial Editorial Screening: Submitted manuscripts are first evaluated by the editorial team to ensure compliance with the journal’s Author Guidelines, alignment with the journal’s scope, and originality (checked using plagiarism detection software). Manuscripts that meet these criteria proceed to peer review.
  2. Peer Review: Manuscripts are reviewed by at least two independent reviewers in a double-blind process, where the identities of authors and reviewers are anonymized to ensure impartiality.
  3. Editorial Decision: Based on reviewer recommendations, the editor makes a final decision: Accepted, Revision Required, Resubmit for Review, or Decline.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, objective, and timely feedback to help authors improve their work and to assist the editorial team in making informed publication decisions. Specific responsibilities include:

  • Evaluating Manuscript Quality: Assess the manuscript based on the following criteria:
    • Originality: Does the manuscript offer new insights or contributions to the field of rule of law?
    • Relevance: Is the manuscript aligned with the journal’s scope and objectives?
    • Methodological Rigor: Are the methods, data, and analysis sound and appropriate?
    • Clarity and Structure: Is the manuscript well-written, logically organized, and clear?
    • Contribution: Does the manuscript advance knowledge or practice in the field?
  • Providing Constructive Feedback: Offer specific, actionable suggestions to improve the manuscript’s quality, clarity, and impact.
  • Maintaining Confidentiality: Treat all manuscripts as confidential and do not share or discuss them with others outside the review process.
  • Timeliness: Complete the review within the agreed timeframe (typically 4–6 weeks).
  • Disclosing Conflicts of Interest: Inform the editor immediately if you have any potential conflicts of interest (e.g., personal or professional relationships with the author).

Ethical Standards

Ipso Jure adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines. Reviewers are expected to:

  • Conduct reviews objectively and impartially.
  • Refrain from using information from the manuscript for personal gain.
  • Provide feedback that is professional, respectful, and constructive.
  • Report any suspected ethical issues (e.g., plagiarism or redundant publication) to the editor.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the field of rule of law, as demonstrated by their academic qualifications, publication record, and professional experience. The editorial team ensures that reviewers have no affiliations or relationships that could compromise their independence.

Review Process via OJS

  1. The editor sends an invitation letter to potential reviewers.
  2. Upon agreeing to review, reviewers receive an account in the Ipso Jure Open Journal System (OJS).
  3. The manuscript and review guidelines are provided through OJS, and reviewers submit their feedback via the platform.

Originality Check

To ensure originality, all manuscripts are screened using plagiarism detection software. Reviewers may also conduct a literature search (e.g., using Scopus, Sinta, or other databases) to verify that the manuscript does not duplicate existing work.

Thank you for your contribution to maintaining the quality and integrity of Ipso Jure. For questions or assistance, please contact the editorial team at [insert contact information].